Latest / The Epstein Chronicles / What an Investigation Into Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn Might Look Like (Part 2) (9/25/26)

Transcript

What an Investigation Into Darren Indyke and Richard Kahn Might Look Like (Part 2) (9/25/26) · The Epstein Chronicles

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. In
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: this episode, we're picking up where we left off, talking
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: about what the investigation into Indyk and Khan might look like.
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: Indyk's role would present a different but equally important line
• 0:15
  Speaker 1: of inquiry. As Epstein's attorney and alleged authorized signatory on
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: important accounts, he occupied a position combining legal proximity with
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: transactional authority. Investigators would catalog every transfer and bearing his authorization,
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: and place those transactions on the master timeline. They would
• 0:35
  Speaker 1: determine whether he initiated transfers, merely approved instructions supplied by Epstein,
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: or performed some combination of both. Emails, text messages, and
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: memoranda surrounding those transfers would be critical because authorization alone
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: doesn't establish the knowledge accompanying an authorization. Investigators would want
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: to know what Indyk was told about the purpose of
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: of each significant transaction. They would compare that explanation with
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: where the money actually ended up. They would examine whether
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: he ever questioned unusual transfers, refused transactions, or asked for
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: supporting documentation. They would also determine which communications were legitimately
• 1:17
  Speaker 1: protected by attorney-client privilege and which involved ordinary business activity
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: rather than legal advice. Because Indyke operated in At the
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: intersection of Epstein's legal and financial structure, separating those functions
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: would be one of the most complicated parts of the investigation.
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: And of course, privilege would consequently become a battlefield almost immediately.
• 1:41
  Speaker 1: An attorney's communications with a client are not automatically available
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: to investigators merely because the attorney handled financial affairs. But
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: attorney-client privilege generally protects confidential legal communications. Not every business
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: transaction performed by someone who happens to be a lawyer.
• 1:59
  Speaker 1: Investigators would therefore classify indict's activity transaction by transaction. Legal
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: advice concerning estate planning might receive one treatment, while signing
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: a bank instruction or serving as a corporate officer could
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: receive another. Prosecutors could use a filter team to review
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: seized material without exposing the investigative team to privileged communications improperly.
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: Courts might ultimately have to decide disputed categories of records.
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: Investigators would also examine communication involving accountants and other third
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: parties because including outsiders can affect privilege depending upon why
• 2:38
  Speaker 1: they were involved. Now, none of that's going to happen
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: quickly or cleanly in a financial network that's this complicated.
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: But the existence of privilege would not eliminate the underlying
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: bank records. because banks, corporate registries, and other independent custodians
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: possess their own copies. That means investigators could reconstruct enormous
• 2:59
  Speaker 1: portions of the money trail, even while specific communications remain contested.
• 3:05
  Speaker 1: Bank compliance files would provide yet another independent source of
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: evidence every major financial institution dealing with Epstein or his business,
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: maintain some form of customer identification and anti-money laundering documentation,
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: Investigators would subpoena account opening records, know your customer files,
• 3:24
  Speaker 1: beneficial ownership information. SARs documentation were legally obtainable, internal risk review,
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: and correspondence with account representatives. They would examine what the
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: banks were told about the purpose of each company. They
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: would compare expected account activity listed during onboarding against what
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: actually occurred. If a company described as providing consulting services
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: repeatedly transferred large sums to unrelated personal accounts, investigators would
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: ask whether the bank questioned those transactions. They would also
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: identify who responded when banks requested explanations. Those responses could
• 4:02
  Speaker 1: be compared with explanations later provided to tax authorities, courts,
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: or investigators. Consistency would matter enormously. Financial investigations often become
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: powerful not because one document contains a confession, but because
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: 10 institutions were given 10 different explanations for the same money.
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: Investigators would also examine cash because Epstein's world famously involved
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: substantial payments to individuals. Bank withdrawals would be plotted by date, location,
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: and person conducting the transaction. Checks written to cash would
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: receive particular attention. Investigators could compare withdrawals with calendars travel records,
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: a property activity, and known payments described by witnesses. They
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: would look for repeated payments and recurring intervals that might
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: indicate an established payment system. A $ 200 withdrawal means very
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: little in isolation. Hundreds of similar withdrawals occurring around documented
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: activity can mean considerably more. Investigators would determine whether employees
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: were reimbursed for cash payments and how those reimbursements were
• 5:11
  Speaker 1: recorded on corporate books. They would compare testimony from household
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: employees and financial staff with accounting records. Any system used
• 5:21
  Speaker 1: to convert corporate funds into physical cash would be reconstructed
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: as thoroughly as electronic wires. The objective would be to
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: determine whether money moving through Epstein's company's ultimately financed activity,
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: entirely different from the businesses those companies purported to conduct.
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: Now credit cards would provide another surprisingly rich source of evidence.
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: Investigators would subpoena statements for Epstein employees, assistants, and relevant
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: corporate cards. Every significant purchase could be categorized according to property, travel, transportation,
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: personal expense, business expense, or unidentified expenditure. Investigators could then
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: compare those purchases with flight records and calendars. Hotel expenses
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: might establish who was in a particular city on a
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: particular date. Airline purchases could reveal travel that never appeared
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: on Epstein's own aircraft logs. Purchases involving electronics, telecommunications, or
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: services might identify devices and accounts not previously known to investigators.
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: Reimbursements could reveal which Epstein entity ultimately absorbed costs initially
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: incurred by employees. Accounting descriptions would again be checked against
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: the underlying merchant records. In a network designed around numerous
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: companies and properties, mundane credit card charges, can provide the
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: connective tissue showing how separate pieces of the operation interacted.
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: Then that, of course, brings us to real estate, and
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: I think that real estate would receive the same forensic
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: treatment because Epstein frequently held properties through corporate entities rather
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: than directly in his own name. The Virgin Islands litigation
• 7:06
  Speaker 1: described entities associated with Little St. James and Great St.
• 7:10
  Speaker 1: James and identified in Dyke and Conn as corporate officers
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: in some of those structures. Investigators would reconstruct every purchase, sale, mortgage, improvement,
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: and ownership transfer involving those properties. They would determine which
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: accounts supplied the purchase money and which entity paid ongoing expenses.
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: Transfers between Epstein-controlled companies would be scrutinized to understand whether
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: they reflected legitimate restructuring, tax planning, liability management, or some
• 7:41
  Speaker 1: other purpose. Deeds would be compared with internal valuations and
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: estate records. Investigators would examine payments to contractors, architects, maintenance companies,
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: and property managers. They would also track capital improvements because
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: large construction projects can move millions of dollars through numerous vendors.
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: Every vendor would create another possible witness and another independent
• 8:05
  Speaker 1: set of records. By tracing ownership and expenses together, investigators
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: could determine whether whether separate corporations were financially independent or
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: simply different pockets in the same pair of pants. Aircraft, automobiles,
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: and maritime assets would undergo similar scrutiny. Investigators would identify
• 8:26
  Speaker 1: which entities technically owned each asset and which entities actually
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: paid to operate them. Purchase records would establish where the
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: money originated, maintenance invoices, fuel purchases, and insurance payments would
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: establish which accounts supported continuing operations. Flight crews and management
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: companies would provide records independent of Epstein's internal bookkeeping. Investigators
• 8:51
  Speaker 1: could then compare those outside records with internal accounting classifications.
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: If aircraft expenses were distributed across several companies, investigators would
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: determine the stated reason for doing so. They would identify
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: whether expenses were allocated according to ownership, usage, tax consideration,
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: or simply whatever account contained money at the time. Transfers
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: used to cover those expenses would then be traced to
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: the revenue-producing entities feeding the network. That exercise could reveal
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: which companies actually generated money and which existed primarily to
• 9:26
  Speaker 1: consume or redistribute it. Once again, Indyke's transaction authority and
• 9:31
  Speaker 1: Kahn's accounting responsibility would make the records highly relevant to
• 9:35
  Speaker 1: understanding that structure. And of course, the investigation would inevitably
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: turn toward foreign transactions as well. International wires automatically create
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: additional questions involving correspondent banks, currency conversions, foreign companies, and
• 9:51
  Speaker 1: beneficial owners. Investigators would identify every foreign account receiving funds
• 9:57
  Speaker 1: from Epstein-controlled entities. They would send requests. through appropriate legal
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: channels to determine who owned those accounts and what happened
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: to the money afterward. Repeated payments to the same foreign
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: recipient would be grouped together rather than examined individually. Investigators
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: would determine what services, purchases, or obligations supposedly justified those payments.
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: They would compare descriptions contained in wire instructions with invoices
• 10:24
  Speaker 1: and emails. Payments to individuals would be distinguished from payments
• 10:28
  Speaker 1: to legitimate commercial vendors. Investigators would also examine whether intermediaries
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: receive money before forwarding it to ultimate recipients. International transactions
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: are often where apparently disconnected corporate structure suddenly converge because
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: the underlying banking system preserves records across jurisdictions. And another
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: major overlooked area would be loans between Epstein and his companies.
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: Closely held business frequently move money through shareholder loans, advances,
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: and intercompany receivables, and those transactions can be entirely legitimate.
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: But investigators would test whether purported loans function like actual loans.
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: They would look for promissory notes, maturity dates, interest payments,
• 11:14
  Speaker 1: and repayment schedules. A supposed loan repeatedly extended without payment
• 11:19
  Speaker 1: could raise questions about whether the accounting description matched economic reality.
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: Investigators would examine whether debts were forgiven and how forgiveness
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: was reported for tax purposes. They would compare balances across
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: the books of both sides of each transaction. If Company
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: A showed Epstein owing $ 5 million while Epstein's records showed
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: no corresponding obligation, investigators would want to know why. they
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: would identify who directed accountants to characterize transfers as loans.
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: Because Kahn handled significant accounting responsibilities, investigators would likely have
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: detailed questions regarding the classification and treatment of any such
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: transactions through Epstein's network, and the estate itself would provide
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: investigators with a remarkable snapshot of financial structure at the
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: moment everything stopped. Epstein signed a will shortly before his death,
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: transferring his property to into the 1953 trust, with Indyk
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: and Kahn later serving as administrators and co-executors of the estate.
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: Estate proceedings required the identification, valuation, and eventual administration of
• 12:26
  Speaker 1: hundreds of millions of dollars in assets. That process necessarily
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: forced Epstein's financial team to determine what he owned, what
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: his companies owned, and what obligations remained outstanding. Investigators could
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: compare those estate inventories with earlier tax returns and financial statements.
• 12:45
  Speaker 1: Assets suddenly appearing only after Epstein's death would generate obvious questions.
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: Assets missing from the estate despite appearing in earlier records
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: would generate different questions. Investigators would examine transfers occurring during
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: the months immediately preceding Epstein's arrest and death for signs
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: of unusual structuring. They would also examine transactions occurring after
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: his death because the state administrators controlled money that no
• 13:12
  Speaker 1: longer would be directed by Epstein himself. Indyk and Kahn
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: therefore represent a rarer bridge connecting Epstein's financial system before
• 13:21
  Speaker 1: his death with the administration of that system afterward. And
• 13:26
  Speaker 1: I think that that bridge could be enormously valuable when
• 13:29
  Speaker 1: investigators begin conducting interviews. Former bookkeepers, assistants, bankers, lawyers, pilots,
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: property managers... and corporate administrators could all be questioned separately.
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: Investigators would avoid giving witnesses the complete picture because discrepancies
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: between independent accounts can be highly informative. One employee might
• 13:49
  Speaker 1: say Epstein personally ordered every transfer. Another might say Kahn
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: routinely handled transfers without consulting him. A banker might recall
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: dealing primarily with Indyke. Documents could then determine which money
• 14:02
  Speaker 1: was supported by the contemporaneous record. investigators would establish who
• 14:06
  Speaker 1: attended meetings where major financial decisions were discussed. They would
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: ask who possessed passwords, checkbooks, banking tokens, and corporate seals.
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: By the time Indyk and Khan were questioned comprehensively, investigators
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: could possess enough independent evidence to test their answers line
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: by line, rather than relying upon broad recollections. And as
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: we have seen, the emails have become the connective tissue
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: between all of those financial records. Investigators could search the
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: enormous collections for account numbers, company names, transaction amounts, invoice numbers,
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: and recurring phrases associated with transfers. Messages immediately preceding or
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: following significant wires would receive special attention. A seemingly harmless instruction,
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: such as move $ 250 to the usual account, becomes meaningful
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: when investigators can identify exactly which $ 250, 000 transfer occurred minutes later.
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: Attachments could reveal spreadsheets unavailable from other sources. Draft invoices
• 15:12
  Speaker 1: could show how descriptions changed before documents were finalized. Email
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: chains could identify who originated an idea, even when someone
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: else ultimately signed the paperwork. Investigators would map the communication
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: pattern to determine which individuals routinely participated in financial decisions.
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: Metadata could establish when documents were created and modified. In
• 15:37
  Speaker 1: a case involving people who spent decades working together, communications
• 15:41
  Speaker 1: might explain relationships that bank records alone cannot. Investigators would
• 15:46
  Speaker 1: also be looking aggressively for money that left the visible
• 15:49
  Speaker 1: Epstein ecosystem entirely. That means tracing transfers to trusts, foundations,
• 15:55
  Speaker 1: investment funds, brokerage accounts, and entities not obviously carrying Epstein's name.
• 16:01
  Speaker 1: Beneficial ownership would become critical. A company could legally be
• 16:05
  Speaker 1: owned by another company which was owned by a trust,
• 16:08
  Speaker 1: which was administered by a third party. Investigators would keep
• 16:12
  Speaker 1: peeling those layers until they reached the natural person controlling
• 16:16
  Speaker 1: the asset. Brokerage records would reveal security transfers that ordinary
• 16:21
  Speaker 1: bank statements might not capture. Private equity interests and hedge
• 16:25
  Speaker 1: fund investments would require subpoenas directly to fund administrators. Artwork, jewelry,
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: and other portable assets would receive attention because value can
• 16:34
  Speaker 1: move without a conventional bank transfer. Investigators would compare Epstein's
• 16:39
  Speaker 1: historical net worth statements against assets ultimately recovered by his estate.
• 16:45
  Speaker 1: Any substantial unexplained difference could become another line of inquiry
• 16:49
  Speaker 1: requiring Indyk and Kahn or other financial advisers to explain
• 16:53
  Speaker 1: what happened. Now, one of the most important questions would
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: be whether the complexity itself had a legitimate purpose. Wealthy
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: people frequently use multiple corporations, trusts, and partnerships for tax planning,
• 17:06
  Speaker 1: investment management, estate planning, and liability protection. Complexity alone is
• 17:12
  Speaker 1: not evidence of criminal conduct. Investigators, therefore, would not ask
• 17:16
  Speaker 1: merely why Epstein had dozens of entities. They would ask
• 17:20
  Speaker 1: what each entity actually did. A legitimate holding company should
• 17:24
  Speaker 1: generally have records consistent with holding assets. A legitimate consulting
• 17:28
  Speaker 1: company should have evidence of consulting work. A legitimate foundation
• 17:33
  Speaker 1: should have records reflecting charitable activity consistent with applicable rules.
• 17:38
  Speaker 1: Problems arise when the stated purpose of an entity diverges
• 17:42
  Speaker 1: dramatically from its observable activity, and that distinction would sit
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: at the heart of any fair but aggressive investigation of
• 17:50
  Speaker 1: Epstein's corporate structure. And obviously the most consequential part of
• 17:54
  Speaker 1: the investigation would be establishing knowledge and intent. Financial records
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: can show that someone signed a wire, prepared a tax return,
• 18:03
  Speaker 1: or recorded a payment, but criminal liability generally requires proving
• 18:07
  Speaker 1: the elements of a specific offense rather than guilt by association.
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: Investigators would therefore seek evidence showing what Indyker Khan understood
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: about particular transactions when they participated in them. That evidence
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: could come from the emails, witness testimony, handwritten notes, repeated
• 18:25
  Speaker 1: patterns or warnings from banks and accountants. Investigators would look
• 18:30
  Speaker 1: for moments when someone explicitly questioned the transaction. They would
• 18:35
  Speaker 1: examine what happened after those warnings. They would distinguish routine
• 18:39
  Speaker 1: professional work from conduct undertaken with knowledge of an unlawful purpose.
• 18:44
  Speaker 1: They would also search for evidence contradicting allegations against either
• 18:47
  Speaker 1: man because a serious investigation has to test both inculpatory
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: and exculpatory explanations. And I think that's very important when
• 18:56
  Speaker 1: we're talking about Epstein, where proximity to a notorious criminal
• 18:59
  Speaker 1: can easily be mistaken for proof of participation. I think
• 19:04
  Speaker 1: the documents would ultimately have to establish far more than
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: proximity if prosecutors were going to charge them. And look,
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: if investigators truly follow those switches without artificial boundaries, the
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: investigation could reach far beyond Indyk and Kahn. Every major
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: incoming payment identifies a source. Every major outgoing payment identifies
• 19:26
  Speaker 1: a recipient. Every shell company identifies officers, directors, owners, bankers, accountants,
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: and registered agents. Every unusual transfer creates a reason to
• 19:37
  Speaker 1: ask what happened before and after the money moved. Every
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: inconsistent explanation creates a reason to dig deeper. Indyk and
• 19:44
  Speaker 1: Khan would therefore represent starting points rather than necessarily ending points.
• 19:50
  Speaker 1: Their records could expose relationships invisible in social photographs or
• 19:54
  Speaker 1: flight logs because money records relationships differently. People can forget meetings,
• 19:59
  Speaker 1: dispute conversations, and explain away associations, but financial institutions preserve dates, amounts,
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: account numbers, and counterparties. If investigators obtain enough of those records,
• 20:11
  Speaker 1: Epstein's financial network could be reconstructed with a precision that
• 20:15
  Speaker 1: has never existed publicly before. And that's why this investigation,
• 20:21
  Speaker 1: that's centered on shell companies and money movement, could become
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: one of the most consequential Epstein investigations undertaken since his
• 20:28
  Speaker 1: arrest in 2019, because it forces investigators to examine the
• 20:32
  Speaker 1: structure beneath the scandal, instead of merely cataloging the people
• 20:37
  Speaker 1: standing around it. Darren Indyk and Richard Kahn would inevitably
• 20:41
  Speaker 1: occupy enormous space in that examination because their documented professional
• 20:45
  Speaker 1: roles place them inside the machinery investigators want to understand.
• 20:51
  Speaker 1: The question would not be whether they knew Epstein because
• 20:54
  Speaker 1: that's been established for decades. The question would be what
• 20:58
  Speaker 1: they knew about the financial system they helped administer, what
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: instructions they received, what transactions they handled, and what explanations
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: were attached to those transactions. Investigators would have to follow
• 21:09
  Speaker 1: every company, every account, every wire, every ledger entry, wherever
• 21:14
  Speaker 1: the evidence led. They would have to distinguish legitimate professional
• 21:18
  Speaker 1: service from transactions that can't withstand scrutiny. They would have
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: to determine whether Epstein's Mesa corporations represented sophisticated but lawful
• 21:28
  Speaker 1: wealth management, mechanisms facilitating his broader operation, or some combination
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: that changed depending upon the entity and transaction. And for
• 21:38
  Speaker 1: perhaps the first time, Epstein's financial life could be examined
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: not as a collection of mysterious anecdotes about a mysterious fortune,
• 21:46
  Speaker 1: but as a system capable of being reconstructed dollar by dollar.
• 21:51
  Speaker 1: If that is really where this investigation is headed, then
• 21:54
  Speaker 1: the most dangerous thing in the room for anyone who
• 21:57
  Speaker 1: participated in that system will not be speculation, headlines, or rumor.
• 22:02
  Speaker 1: It'll be the ledger. All the information that goes with
• 22:06
  Speaker 1: this episode can be found in the description box.